What Does Tom Friedman Know About TPP?

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman once declared that he doesn’t really bother understanding international trade agreements. But that doesn’t stop him from writing about them. In a TV interview (CNBC, 7/22/06), he once admitted: “I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.” (Actually, he didn’t even know what its name was; it’s the Central America Free Trade Agreement, not “Caribbean.”)

So there was Friedman on Sunday (2/16/14) writing about the TPP, or Trans-Pacific Partnership. Friedman was contrasting the can-do spirit of Silicon Valley with the paralysis on Capitol Hill:

But Washington these days won’t even do the league minimum. As The Economist observed in an essay entitled “When Harry Mugged Barry,” both the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with big Asian markets like Japan, which is almost done, and the U.S.-European Union trade deal, which is being negotiated, are “next generation” agreements that even the playing field for us by requiring higher environmental and labor standards from our trading partners and more access for our software and services.

International trade deals are being to written to benefit the United States and raise environmental and labor standards. Well, who could be against that?

The only problem is that doesn’t appear to be what’s happening. As Friedman’s paper has reported (1/15/14):

The Obama administration is retreating from previous demands of strong international environmental protections in order to reach agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a pillar of President Obama’s strategic shift to Asia, according to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to the contentious trade talks.

The paper added that “the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties.”

OK, but Friedman is not citing his paper–he’s citing The Economist (2/8/14).The problem is that he mischaracterizes what they wrote.

In Friedman’s mind, the message from TheEconomist was that these trade deals

are “next generation” agreements that even the playing field for us by requiring higher environmental and labor standards from our trading partners and more access for our software and services.

But go look at the article he’s citing. The only reference labor and environmental standards is one line suggesting that Senate Democrats who are opposing the White House on fast track might be able to insist that these be part of the agreement: “Haggling in the Senate may yield a new version with enough about labor standards and the environment to satisfy the protectionists.” In other words, this is a possible outcome only because Democrats are opposing the White House push on the TPP–which is a political tactic that both Friedman and TheEconomist are against. (The “damage has already been done” by the fact that “America’s leaders seem determined to attach conditions to a fast-track bill,” the magazine writes.)

Misrepresenting his source not the only problem with Friedman’s column; as economist Dean Baker notes (Beat the Press, 2/15/14), Friedman suggests the good news from these trade deals is that they “could generate global gains of $600 billion a year, with $200 billion of that going to America.” Which means… what, exactly? Baker writes:

For those who actually like their numbers to mean something, these projections are for somewhere around the middle of the next decade when world GDP will be around $160 trillion and US GDP will be close to $30 trillion. That puts the projected gains at a bit less than 0.4 percent of world GDP and 0.7 percent of US GDP. That’s not trivial, but hardly the difference between booming growth and a stagnant economy. In the case of the US, the boost to growth would be around 0.05 percentage points.

Whatever the case, Friedman’s been told these are “free trade” deals, and those are the ones he’s for.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

Friedman is the Typical Corpse-Press Troll God. He bellow, he screeches, he makes massive amounts of noise that sound strangely like they are from the nether regions of his anatomy; What he does not do is say anything intelligent or useful.

He is the perfect example of the Mono-winged Psittacoidea. Nothing he says is from him, he is merely parroting someone Else’s by-lines.

The only thing you need to know about the TPP and why O and the other elites are pushing it is that the US is scared to death that China is gaining on the US and will wind up being the predominant trading partner with Asia. The US does not want China and Asia to have good relations, they want Asia to be like the EU, beholden to the US for protection, militarily and financially. China, of course, sees things differently and thinks China should be where Asia turns for partners in the military and financial realm. So O and the Elites are willing to sign anything if it gets them “partner” status with Asia and dilutes Chinas influence. So they are trying to do this TPP in secret so know one will know what a bad deal it is for the average american. It also helps them cement their one world gvt desires by making corporations higher than countries in being able to get their way in disputes over a country’s laws.

Wow, Mr. Friedman, who do you really work for? I think that most people would be horrified to find that TPP would give corporations power over local, state and national governments. Also, it is very freaky that mulitnational corporations could sue Americans who protest against what they were doing, you know, like protesting against the coporations trashing the environment…..a person could get sued for that.
It’s bad enough that the NSA is shredding the Constitution. Has anyone seen the real Constitution lately?. People take an OATH to DEFEND it….has the Constitution been put on line and anyone can it edit now? I am afraid it probably lets any OAF SUBVERT it. That’s what TPP would be doing.
TPP really stands for “Totally Paralyzing People.” Humanity already did the feudal thing once before, and that one time was enough! Tom Freidman doesn’t know anythiing!

Im less concerned what Mr freedman knows about international treaties and more concerned what mr obama knows.I think in both cases that would be next to nothing.One reports on them, and one actually conducts business on our behalf.Trump was just on Fox this morning spouting about how little Obama and his staff knows about trade and trade agreements.Usually i would say that the president MUST have top people on it.But if you look into it I think Trump may be right.It is a group straight out of academia that have failed more than they have succeeded.